Flight Simulators

It is a shame that the Xbox platform, created by the makers of the best flight simulators, doesn't have one. They have airborne fighting games, but that's not quite the same thing. See, flight doesn't have to involve bullets. And it doesn't have to be boring either. Nap-of-the-earth flying (close to the ground) is exceedingly dangerous, which is why aerial tanker fire fighter pilots get killed doing it. Going up a canyon with a heavy load, on the verge of stalling out, to drop it right as you're about to hit the hot air over the fire? Yeah. Kills pilots. Fire fighting planes are mostly old retrofits, as well, often DC-10s or likewise nasty prop driven planes with big motors. A spotter is sometimes modern, but just as often a faster Cessna with a pilot willing to circle over a fire. In the Foothills, where people surround their homes in trees because its pretty and natural looking, and build in canyons, fires here are really dangerous. Considering we have drought, though we're expecting rain tomorrow to Thursday, fires tend to be very bad in California. Way more dangerous and damaging than earthquakes. The hills have the views and the privacy and usually better weather. Its 10-15 degrees warmer here in the winter, and 10 degrees cooler in the summer due to being above the central valley inversion layer.

And keep in mind there are roads crossing this line, and towns above and below it, which affects the costs of heating or cooling and thus price of those homes and cost of daily commute based on distance. Flying through an inversion layer, into fog, requires instrument flying and is very dangerous. In a more technical sort of aircraft, a VR rendering system would project the environment, based on compass and GPS, to display the world outside the cockpit, including warnings and color coded, so you can use your eyes rather than land based on instruments. They're primitive and require you to trust you know where you are based on them. Most pilots would rather not fly than fly in fog in a small plane. You'd think that eventually upgrades from the GPS and computer age would reach to Cessnas so a small relatively slow and cheap plane would be just as safe as a jet. Maybe someday.

I have no interest in flying big jets. I know they're more stable through turbulence than small Cessnas. And they crash a lot less, and have better controls and trim options. Still, small planes give you way more places to land, more options to fly, more terrain to cross at lower altitude, though I am aware that flight plans suck the fun out of flying something fierce. You can't just turn left to see something cool when you're in a plane. Deviating from flight planes is a major violation of FAA regulations and will result in fines, possibly jail, and losing your license. There's more freedom on the road.

Proper flying, like in dreams, is sadly a thing of fantasy and video games. Or very slow biplanes which have so much lift its harder to crash them. That not to say you can't make a fast mono-wing plane do it. Flight assistance controls could pretty easily calculate paths and adjust trim, flaps, and power faster than you could, enabling nap of the earth flying without being so dangerous. The problem with nap of the earth is a 1% grade isn't terribly visible to the naked eye, yet puts you into the ground faster than you can react. It HAS to be done with a computer controlled plane. The F-111 fighter-bomber proved this, time and again killing pilots while they worked out the system bugs. Eventually they gave up the upgraded project the B1-B bomber, and moved onto stealth instead. Proper altitudes, invisible to radar and heat detection. No nap of the earth. No fun.

The most interesting piloting I've seen on TV is the Alaskan Bush Pilots, who land on dirt strips in smallish cargo Cessnas, built rugged and able to de-ice, I think, and pilots who are almost fearlessly brave yet don't die terribly often. Takes a lot of training to fly up there. And they can't do it year round. The trouble with Alaska is the weather changes every half hour, so turning back after the weather goes from sunny to snow is a real likelihood. And making the wrong call could kill you and your passengers. Its also the fastest and most efficient way to get around since frost heaves of 6-10 inches destroy pavement so roads are often gravel or dirt, and wash out seasonally. Between the melt in spring and the roads getting repaired, and all repairs are accepted as temporary, there's need for hauling emergency supplies and people to the hospital etc. Alaska is ridiculously expensive. They don't have their own refineries. Fuel is refined down in Richmond (SF bay), then put on a tanker and shipped back up to Alaska. So drivers and pilots are paying for shipping too. Visiting Alaska during my college years gave me a lot of perspective. America is largely empty, and there's tar oozing out into ditches in northern British Columbia, from the edge of the Alberta Oil Sands. There's lots up there, however they really need a refinery in place instead of shipping crude everywhere at lower profit. Canada would be helping itself quite a lot by only exporting finished products like Gasoline and diesel and jet fuel.

I remain baffled that Microsoft won't put its flight simulator into the Xbox. Whatever. I'll fly my Dad's sometime and see if I like it. Maybe some nap of the earth flying with a small plane would be fun. We've seen pilots seeding rice fields in springtime along Highway 20 between Yuba City and Colusa. 50 feet off the ground and spreading green dyed rice grains so the birds won't eat them. Its cheaper than using a combine and less disturbing to the soil under that foot of water.

I'm kinda surprised they don't offer games based on Air Tractors and fire bombing wildfires and bush piloting. Those are interesting enough to justify. And maybe someday offer seaplanes for Ground Effect along the pacific, though probably should stick to the Inland Passage around Vancouver Island since surface waves can and do catch wingtips and kill pilots with that type of aircraft, the main reason they aren't used in the real world.

Notice the water is just ripples? Real Pacific swells are 12 feet or bigger. Calling it the Pacific was a name of pure irony. And I know that someday, when fuel is more precious, we'll have rail and sail driven ferry-boats on our coastline again. The roads wash out in winter storms. Building boats that can smooth out those swells and carry commercial goods and passengers reliably will be a real challenge of bravery and engineering. If the railroads running to the coast are unreliable or frequently disabled, I could see the point of the ferry system. Ferries need ports to dock in, and the ports along the coast mostly need dredging, and their jetties (breakwaters) maintained and lit so incoming boats have a place to stop that's still enough to offload passengers and cargo, then room to turn around. Runways are cheaper, but carry far less cargo. A plane like that can run on a car or truck engine because weight isn't much of a factor. The air cushion is so strong, unfortunately, you feel every wave crest like a bumpy road. This is the big downside to flying nap of the earth, really close I mean. Not a hundred feet up.

Good times. I still think M$ should make its flight simulator for Xbox.